CBC had the Larry Kudlow trump economic official on American sunday shows how "Trudeua stab the US in Back". This just for American consumption throwing shade of the Canada. Trump is opening the way to make Canada an example with in trade issues, I didnt hear the whole thing, if Kudlow the mentioned the 25 tarrif on Canada cars there is going to alot ugly go around. And CBC the PM saying something in French and running away form the media.

Apperatenly so, I do not confirm the number independent by the media is using the figure 95% of cars from Canadian factories are shipped to US. If the 25 % traffic becomes a fact the effective would not be the total destrutiton of car production. The Asians have car plants here not sell to Canada but they ship south too. The Canadian car market is fraction of size the US.

"There were deep divisions between the leaders and Trump that made a unanimous communique unlikely. There was broad disagreement at the G7 table, especially on trade and climate. From Canada's perspective, NAFTA remains unsolved. It's clear this meeting did nothing to move the leaders close to settling the big economic issues that divide them. 'The US has been taken advantage of for decades,' the US president said. 'We are like the piggybank everybody is robbing."

CBC had the Larry Kudlow trump economic official on American sunday shows how "Trudeua stab the US in Back". This just for American consumption throwing shade of the Canada. Trump is opening the way to make Canada an example with in trade issues, I didnt hear the whole thing, if Kudlow the mentioned the 25 tarrif on Canada cars there is going to alot ugly go around. And CBC the PM saying something in French and running away form the media.

Larry’s been known to do a line or two now and then. Referred to Trudeau as Pierre at one point.

Trump has previously cited an $800 billion trade deficit more than 50 times, according to the New York Times. But whether $800 billion or $817 billion, Trump’s number only includes trade in goods, excluding services. That distortion seems to represent a belief within the administration that manufacturing and farming are inherently better economic activities than providing services. This ethos would seem to align with the concerns of Trump’s domestic political base.

Sometime in the late 80s or early 90s I read that over time manufacturing would go because of free trade but that it would be replaced by better paying jobs in tech and services. I immediately realized this would leave a large number of people unable to get good paying jobs. Not everyone is suited to work in tech and services. At the time I knew that Purina was paying floor sweepers 16$ an hour. And that was in the early 80s.

It seems the people Trump and Ford are appealing to are the people who would have been working in well-paying manufacturing jobs in the past. Service jobs won't cut it for them. Service jobs are either high tech or low paid. Lifting minimum wage is an attempt at rebalancing but it isn't nearly enough. It isn't replacing highly paid manufacturing jobs in any of the industrialized 1st world countries. This is why minimum income is getting serious consideration but that won't be good enough either for people who can remember prosperity. Recent immigrants don't know any better because they never swept a floor for 16$ an hour.

"Peter Navarro, a trade adviser to President Donald Trump escalated the White House's rebuke of PM Justin Trudeau...."There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door,' Navarro said on Fox News Sunday. Navarro's comments added to the White House's continued criticism of Trudeau, who said after Trump left the G7 summit that Canada would impose retaliatory measures and warned that Canada would not be 'pushed around." [Really? That'll be a first.]

See also: McCain to Allies: 'Americans stand with you even if our president doesn't.'

Canadian elite solidarity from Doug Ford to Bob Rae in 'support' of Trudeau. Prepare to be played and suckered, the show is just beginning...

All this is politically probably the best thing for Trudeau since he was elected PM.

I think it's a mixed bag. The election of Ford suggests that negativity, nationalism and bullying are rubbing off on a significant portion of Canadians. That's why leadership is so important. It serves as an example for the general population. Elect a bully and bullying become more socially acceptable. The NDP can celebrate their 40 seats all they want, but it's actually a disastrous result for Ontario. And it will likely have a negative effect on the rest of Canada.

I think the point is you need someone who will stand up strongly against the Nazi

Trump is incredibly thin-skinned. Openly calling him a Fascist would completely destroy the Canada-US relationship and would be devastating to our economy. Trump's ego is more important to him than anything, including other people's economic benefit.

Is there anything Trudeau could have differently? I doubt Trump is attacking Trudeau because he was too nice. Trudeau publicly critisized the US tarrifs, in a very professional manner, triggering the Trump twitter rant.

Is there anything Trudeau could have differently? I doubt Trump is attacking Trudeau because he was too nice. Trudeau publicly critisized the US tarrifs, in a very professional manner, triggering the Trump twitter rant.

I think the point is you need someone who will stand up strongly against the Nazi

Like Harper, who said give the Americans anything they want on NAFTA?

There is no dealing with Trump. It isn't possible to negotiate with him. Trump is his way or the highway. His way is so terrible that the highway is the only choice available.

It's anyone's guess what will happen from here. Trump doesn't seem to have left himself any back down room but that doesn't really matter because Trump creates his own reality which he changes day to day. Tomorrow he could be saying he and Trudeau are like family and it's just a brotherly spat nothing more. Or, he could put in those auto tarifs.

The "good" news is that he is doing just as much damage to the US economy and international corporations are flipping out.

"We have to prepare and we're very worried and should be very worried on this side,' said Charest. A senior Liberal source told Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period, that American-inspired tariffs on autos would be close to an existential threat to Canada's economy..."

"...The German chancellor also said she is not ready to 'give up on the G7' but would seek dialogue with Russia and try to 'work very closely' with Japan, Canada, India and China. Her interview came a day after Trump refused to endorse the G7 Summit's communique that called for reducing tariff barriers..."

First the 1812 war only involved parts of what became Canada and it is possible that trade issues could do more economic damage to Canada than the destruction of invasion back then. Hard to say.

Secondly this is not about US-Canada relations being in a crisis per se. This is about US relations with most of the world. when you consider the environment then it is literally with the world and not even just with the poeple who live here.

There is, however, a recognition that happens on the way to a war you do not want. For a period you do all you can to avoid it. Then you realize that you cannot avoid it and must win it. And then you do what you need to win.

Trump is not in a great position becuase he is far more vulnerable than he thinks he is and the other countries of the world understand his position better than he does. Trump believes that he and the US is one thing and that when he threatens he brings to bear all that is TRUMP/USA.

The rest of the world understand that they cannot defeat the US without a great deal of pain and more unity than they would be able to produce. Once they know that a war with Trump is inevitable, they will turn to the next strategy avaiable after appeasement and avoidance is no longer viable.

That next strategy is to leverage against Trump the forces against him in the US. This is fitting since that was Putin's strategy as well.

Trump seems to be stupid enough to miss the point here and that his weakest card is trade. Few in the US like Trump. Here is there for the money. His vile politics is music to the ears of the GOP and, with the exception of trade, he may have been unbeatable, even posing a threat to the insitutions meant to put any check on Presidential power. This is the scotch tape holding up the fig-leaf of US democracy.

But trade is money. Policies on trade create both a present split through Trump's GOP alliance and a threat to the well-being of Trump supporters that even the most dense among them would have a hard time ignoring.

The G6 (now that the G-7 is only a figment of imagination, history, and misplaced hope), is well aware that this is a glaring weakness for Trump. They are aware that he cannot see it because his ego does not permit him to see himself seperate from the US state. And so the G6 now aware that conflict is inevitable understand that the US split will not happen without help and that they cannto survive in a recognizable form with pushing Trump out. Most of these G-6 leaders know that they cannot survive the economic shocks that Trump could visit on their economies and understand that their fight against Trump is for their political careers now existential. Trump, in his arrogance, fails to understand that he has entered a fight for political survival with a half a dozen countries (I count a couple non G6 countries and don't count Italy which is not in such a political battle, having already entered the crisis the others are fearing).

These countries all understand that Trump has to be hit politically/economically square in the middle of his alliance of convenience with the GOP. Once they understand that this battle cannot be lost nor avoided and can only be won, and they understand that it can only be won by using US-based power, their strategy is clear. They have to hit hard, fast and prior to the midterms. They have to damage the economies of states that could consider voting for the GOP. They have to shake the US electorate into taking a decisive action. They have to shake US Congress into a recognition that apologies saying they disagree with their President are not only useless but embarassing.

In short global pressure on the US has to come quickly rather than slowly and has to be strong enough to make the US act to stop Trump.

If it is strong enough the GOP even has an option. If the GOP, mindful of their trade concerns depose Trump, prior to the elections, the they won't have to wear Trump in the elections. If they do not then the US voters will have to punish the GOP hard to get to Trump. It is a gamble as to whether they could get off the hook at this point but the possibility exists and it is now greater that they would suffer more by going into the election with Trump or having themselves contained him.

The US people and Congress, I don't think are there yet.

I think the G-6 is.

If so, then the G-6 may be all in on attacking Trump as much as they were in stroking his ego previously (possible exception Italy).

If this is the case, Trudeau may decide that the short term pain of this strategy while Trump retaliates may be less than the long term pain that cannot be avoided.

This is based on an understanding of human nature in disagreement: people are often conflict averse, but when they realize that a person cannot be reasoned with and that their peaceful attempts are pointless, then they may turn on a dime. If you want to use aggression to get your way, you always have to indicate that this aggression will stop once you do. Trump has broken this rule and now nobody can count on, not only his word, but the idea that giving him anything he asks for will make him any better than he is.

this is not a decline of the west-- more of a split. The US is really a big part to break away but once the idea that prevention is no longer workable the remaining countries will take stock and probably work together in some ways closer than before.

When it comes to Brexit, the UK will face some tough choices. The US is no longer a soft alternate landing and the Commonwealth was always unrealistic. I think the new geopolitics leaves litte room for a viable Brexit.

"...The German chancellor also said she is not ready to 'give up on the G7' but would seek dialogue with Russia and try to 'work very closely' with Japan, Canada, India and China. Her interview came a day after Trump refused to endorse the G7 Summit's communique that called for reducing tariff barriers..."

The decline of the West...

We actually may be witnessing the setting of the colonial old boys club g7.

Nothing of any real interest and far from inspiring coming out of this shit show that repeats every year.

Im yet to read anything decent from a g7.

The g7 and SCO side by side comparison is a huge embarrassment for the west. Even if Trump has an agreeable manner, nothing worth wile would ever see the light of day.

And the g7 seems more than comfortable continuing the shit show vicious circle.

"Standing up to Trump is, for Trudeau, likely to be vital to his chances of re-election in next year's federal elections, for which recent opinion polls have not looked overly promising. Going on the attack against a bully who is regarded unfavourably by most Canadians is, in short, almost certainly a winner..."

"These are the most dangerous days of the Trudeau era. An escalating trade war with the United States has turned into a deeply personal showdown between the leaders, and now Donald Trump is threatening to hit Canada with a 25 per cent tariff on Canadians autos.

'That would be close to an existential threat to our economy,' a senior Liberal source involved in the trade negotiations told me. How fast could that happen? ' The US could push this through as early as July.' I was stunned by that.

While polls show Canadians support the PM's attitude that Canada will not be pushed around - we should not be - just let that sink in. By July the US could send our economy into spasms. How far will Trump go? Just watch him."

However, the extremes Trump goes to are very likely to be the end of him. This is very predictably the very wrong battle for Trump. It is his most serious confrontation and he is going in with his party divided over an issue of jobs and money. He is going to blunder his way into getting screwed by his own party.

For Canada the calculation is now different. Trump will cayuse a recession. Our choice is either--

Fight back hard to the point where it hurts Trump enough that he is removed and the recession is short and deep over the summer.

or

Try to mitigate where the pain could last years and lead to far greater long term losses.

The pain is now seen to be one that will last until Trump is gone. Anything that can be done to damage Trump hjas to be a priority of every country dealing with the US who is now compromised by him. The realization that no reason can reach him has dawned on all of them.

Is there anything Trudeau could have differently? I doubt Trump is attacking Trudeau because he was too nice. Trudeau publicly critisized the US tarrifs, in a very professional manner, triggering the Trump twitter rant.

And when other heads of government are nice to Trump, he just condescends to them and humiliates them. There's no effective "play" on this for anybody trying to negotiate with the guy. The best approach is to simply wait until the Big Macs and the KFC buckets take him down.

Is there anything Trudeau could have differently? I doubt Trump is attacking Trudeau because he was too nice. Trudeau publicly critisized the US tarrifs, in a very professional manner, triggering the Trump twitter rant.

And when other heads of government are nice to Trump, he just condescends to them and humiliates them. There's no effective "play" on this for anybody trying to negotiate with the guy. The best approach is to simply wait until the Big Macs and the KFC buckets take him down.

I believe that was the strategy but the recent G-7 debacle on trade is making it clear that trump does not need much time to cause more chaos. As a result a more short term strategy has to be found.

I think the real anger from Trump is that Canada is doing just that -- making alliances within the US that are causing more trouble for Trump. Trump ought to have seen this coming since it was always clear that the trade file is where his party were not in agreement and where the most money for GOP donors was a stake and the issue that woudl affect the greatest number of jobs.

I think the real anger from Trump is that Canada is doing just that -- making alliances within the US that are causing more trouble for Trump. Trump ought to have seen this coming since it was always clear that the trade file is where his party were not in agreement and where the most money for GOP donors was a stake and the issue that woudl affect the greatest number of jobs.

That's probably what he meant by backstabbing. Canada did a quiet end run around him. US trading partners are all aiming straight for Trump states. NAFTA was designed to be difficult to untangle once it was established. It's not the style of trading arrangement that can be renegotiated every five years. That defeats the entire purpose of such an agreement which is to provide stable markets.

That brings me to something that has begun to puzzle me. Why isn't the stock market reacting to Trump's threats?

"It's as if Donald Trump has sent a convoy of frigates down the St Lawrence. The potent brew of indignation and patriotism among Canadians at the president's bully tactics has produced conditions ripe for a Boycott America backlash.

The Town of Halton Hills in Ontario voted Monday on a motion that would see it encourage its residents and businesses to consider avoiding US goods..."

"US President Donald Trump slammed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during his press conference following historic talks with North Korea on Tuesday, saying Trudeau's post-G7 comments would 'cost a lot of money for the people of Canada...."

"...The main US demand is for Canada and other countries to join with it in punishing China for its trade protections. Early indications are that the US plans to play rough to get its way. The Americans want to force Canada, Mexico the EU and other trading parties to apply 25% protectionist tariffs against Chinese auto exports.

Canadians were led to believe by successive governments that it enjoyed free trade with the US thanks to the 1988 Canada-US bilateral trade deal and its successor, NAFTA. Yet both these deals provided for full application of American protectionist trade law to cross border commerce. While the outrage in Ottawa from the Canadian establishment and media is being directed at Trump, the action taken by the US is very much in line with the way American authorities have acted historically when they act to exert their dominance over other countries.

There is still time for Canada to adopt a 'Made in Canada' economic plan for the future..."

That brings me to something that has begun to puzzle me. Why isn't the stock market reacting to Trump's threats?

That's a very good question. For years and years I've heard "the markets hate uncertainty, the markets hate uncertainty." Well, here's Mr. Uncertainty.

Probably multiple answers:

1) The markets have been hurt - you cannot know what would be the numbers if this had not happened

2) The markets might not all be as fearful what is going on - while they will damage exports, this would reduce the value of the dollar accordingly. That difference in currency may amount to more when it comes to competative positions than tariffs. Canada is unlikely to lose international arbitration on these and even if the US pulls out of NAFTA international tariffs are not that high.

3) This is a measure of risk against the calamity - markets may be betting that the problem is not as severe (see above) and that the risk is lower since the GOP are against it.

4) The markets may be full of people who disbelieve Trump

5) The markets already have to price in a downturn given the cycle. This could make a downturn worse or it could hold the market back enough that a downturn might be put off.

6) Most are looking past Trump. This may be a miscalculation but for the time being markets may assume that Congress will restrain Trump in 2019. That leaves only six months at maximum to deal with this. Maybe less, if the GOP decides it is worried enough to put him on a leash earlier.

7) Markets are already reacting to the other pro-business, anti-poor, capitalist agenda of Trump and the GOP. This might negate this.

8) The absolute most important to realize is that markets are the marker of the health of the wealthy more than the entire economy. Even as others do have money in the market, the trends go with the wealth not the pension funds etc that follow along to make money or the small time investor. If the wealthy figure they will be okay, the markets won't move by much. It is possible that the markets figure that with the tax cuts and all, likely it is just the middle class and the poor that will suffer and the wealthy will just make more money.

9) The consumer confidence and spending part of the economy has been changing as wealth concentrates and things are made in different places -- it is a different consumer and a different product. Today many more people spend most of their money on essentials that will move less on confidence than need. The ones who really spend on confidence is a an upper income group that will make more money in a recession after tax cuts than a good economy without them.

10) The markets may think that Canadian tax cuts will have to follow US ones -- even if that means the destruction of social programs. If they gamble this in, they may figure that even as 90% of people suffer, the 10% with the real money will actually do better. If that is the case the markets will go higher, even as the economy suffers for most people.

11) Markets reflect the globalization now. Even if the North American economy is bad generally, there are other places to make money. If the capital class is not suffering they do not have to care as much for the rest of the country.

In other words, Markets are much more sophisticated that just a single threat and headline AND markets are also often wrong and they do not care about the general population except where there is a consumer advantage. So it is not a shock to see this.

I have expected that there would one day be a recession where the wealthy class may not care becuase it would not be a textbook one affecting them. In other words the GDP will not shrink even as most people suffer. The welathy will get more in tax cuts than they will give up in income. Austerity on the masses will not hit them very hard. This is where we have been headed with the previous so-called jobless recovery. This is the trend that has lead to a middle income group that is almost gone while the government drones on about a so-called middle class.

So a few thoughts here -- and even if only some are correct, that would be enough to explain why the markets are not reacting.

It is important, in class politics, to ask these questions as the answers are critical -- so good you raised the question.

"With the disintegration of the system that dominated world trade from 1970, the US is increasingly becoming the disruptor of world trade. In contrast to 1945, the world doesn't need the US, it is the US which needs the world. In global economic terms, it's war. And it's here that the response of EU nations and Canada is insufficient: instead of advocating a new vision, they act as an offended party complaining that the US broke the established rules..."

Recriminations, Threats, Between US and Allies Continue After Collapse of G7 Summit

Trump and his 'America First' agenda express the disorientation and outrage of the American ruling elite over the massive decline in the world economic position of American capitalism over the past five decades, and their failure to reverse the decline by means of military violence.

Under the conditions and in the context of a global crisis of the capitalist system, the US is resorting to the methods of trade war in an attempt to offload its crisis onto its major competitors..."